Greetings!
I'm gearing up to help get the Cassandra 5.0 docs in good order before the
GA release occurs later this year. Recently, I've been thinking about a
more standardized organization to docs, to make it simpler for users to
find what they are looking for, separate from searching. [That's the
Hello Cassandra Community,
I've been faced with a number of inconsistencies in the user APIs of
the internal data collections representation exposed through the
Cassandra monitoring interfaces that need to be fully aligned from an
operator perspective. First of all, I'm highlighting JMX, Dropwiza
Hugely excited to this – thanks to the Program Committee and to the Linux Foundation
for organizing!It's been a long few years away from conferences and I can't wait to
see all of you.Beyond learning about what everyone is doing with Apache Cassandra,
I'm looking forward to the hallway chats an
Hi Josh
I chose to mainly reply to Benedict's latest email as a reply to both of
you, but came back here only for a single higher level comment:
I'm not aware of the project history of such mega reviews, other than years
later, indirectly I have maybe felt the impact to quality that such large
co
Thanks Benedict
For brevity I'll respond to your email, although indirectly this is also a
continuation of my debate with Josh:
At least on my scorecard, one issue was raised regarding the actual code:
CASSANDRA-18193 Provide design and API documentation. Since the addition of
code comments also
>
> *To create a more neutral ground that reflects our community better, Linux
> Foundation Events has taken on the considerable task of running Cassandra
> Summit in 2023. We are very grateful they took a chance on our community,
> and we will be better for it. *
>
*…*
>
*Why is this important to
Thank you Maxim for doing this.
It is nice to see this effort materialized in a PR.
I would wait until bigger chunks of work are committed to trunk (like CEP-15)
to not collide too much. I would say we can postpone doing this until the
actual 5.0 release, last weeks before it so we would not cl
contributors who didn't actively work on Accord, have assumed that they will be invited to review nowI may have missed it, but I have not seen anyone propose to substantively review the actual work, only the impact of rebasing. Which, honestly, there is plenty of time to do - the impact is essentia
